' Ahmad Hayat Khan Hakim (hereinafter referred to as the respondent employee) was appointed as a Store Keeper in Punjab Road Transport Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 16-11- 1957. He was promoted as Head Store Keeper in 1963. As a result of an agreement between the Board and the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) he alongwith many others stood transferred to the Corporation on the same terms and conditions of service with effect from 1-2-1977. Since then he is working in that capacity in the Corporation.
2. 'The Managing Director of the Board vide order dated 17-3-1979 (Exh. P-1) upgraded the post of Head Store Keeper to that of Superintendent Store in the following services
(1) General Stores.
(2) Government Transport Service, Saddar, Lahore.
(3) Government Transport Service, Badami Bagh, Lahore.
(4) Government Transport Service, Multan.
(5) Government Transport Service, Islamabad.
(6) Government Transport Service, Railway Road, Faisalabad.
' A Head Store Keeper was getting his wages in N P S No, 10 but the post of Superintendent Stores was placed in N. P. S. No,
13. The effect of upgrading the said posts was that 7 Head Store Keepers were promoted to the posts of Superintendent Stores. However, the Managing Director of the Board did not actually give N. P. S. No, 13 to the said Head Store Keepers but they were temporarily promoted on ad hoc basis and were allowed 10 per cent of their pay till further orders. The Managing Director of the Corporation, however, did not upgrade any post of Head Store Keeper to that of Superintendent Stores, nor any promotion of any Head Store Keeper was ordered by the Corporation. The grievance of the respondent employee was that he was a Head Store Keeper on 1-24977 when the Corporation came into being and his services stood transferred to the Corporation. He claims that he was senior to some of those Head Store Keepers, who remained with the Board and now, have been promoted on ad hoc basis as Superintendent Stores. According to him, if he had not been transferred to the Corporation, he would have been promoted on 17-3- 1979 as Superintendent Stores as some Head Store Keepers junior to him have been promoted as Superintendent Stores in the Board. He, therefore, filed a petition under section 25- A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. He himself appeared as his own witness. The evidence of the Board was closed by the Labour Court as the Board had not brought any evidence on the date fixed for this purpose i,e, 11-10-1979. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 23-10-1979 accepted the petition and directed the Corporation and the Board to promote the respondent employee as Superintendent Stores in N. P. S. No, 13 with effect from 17-3-1979. It was further observed by the Labour Court that the respondent employee shall remain posted in the Corporation till the Managing Director of the Corporation as well as that of the Board decided as to whether his services are to be transferred or not. The respondent employee was also granted back benefits. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision, both the Board and the Corporation have filed the instant separate appeals. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned decision, they will be disposed of together by one judgment.
3. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
4. It is an admitted fact that on 1-2-1977 the services of the respondent employee stood transferred to the Corporation on the same terms and conditions of service and since then he is working in the Corporation and getting all his wages and other service benefits from the Corporation. In other words, since 1-2-1977 the respondent employee has nothing to do with the Board regarding his employment. Conversely after 1-2-1977 neither he got any employment benefit from the Board nor the Board exercised any disciplinary control over him. He had never raised any objection or protest against his transfer from the Board to the Corporation on 1-2-1977 although it is not his case that he did not have the knowledge about his transfer to the Corporation as he has been getting his wages and other service benefit from the Corporation and not from the Board. Similarly, it is not denied that the respondent employee had the knowledge about the agreement between the two organizations, as a result of which his services stood transferred to the Corporation. He continued to serve under the organization i,e, the Corporation. If the Managing Director of the Board had not upgraded the post of Head Store Keeper on 17-3-1979, the respondent employee could not have any grievance against the Board and would have continued in service on the same terms and conditions of service in the Corporation. Complete silence on his part for such a long time is sufficient to draw the inference that the respondent-employee had acquiesced to the new change and by his own conduct treated the Corporation and not the Board as his employer for all purposes of employment. In such a situation when the respondent employee remained silent for such a long period, the question of acquiescence would straightaway be attracted and would operate by way of estoppel against him. By getting his wages and other employment benefits from the Corporation and not claiming any such benefit from the Board, he has treated the Corporation as his employer for all purposes and conversely did not treat the Board as his employer. From 1-2- 1977 till 17-3-1979 neither the respondent employee claimed any employment benefit from the Board nor the Board claimed any disciplinary control over him. It is too late in the day for the respondent employee to claim any relief from the Board when the ceased to be Board's employee long ago on 1-2-1977. He is, therefore, estopped now by his own conduct and acquiescence to raise any such plea at this stage merely because the Board has upgraded the post of Head Store Keeper. It is not denied that the worker could claim from the Board any such relief only if the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee existed between the two. The worker has miserably failed to establish such relationship after 1-2-1977, as all his employment connections stood severed with the Board on 1-2-1977. On the other hand, it is established that on 17-3-1979 the respondent employee was not in the employment of the Board and consequently no liability could be imposed upon the Board after his transfer to the Corporation on 1-2-1977. I have already discussed in details in Izzat Ali's case liability of the Board regarding all such employees of the Board, who stood transferred to the Corporation on 1-2-1977 on the same terms and conditions of service. For the reasons stated in that case, it is held that the Board is not the employer of the respondent employee and consequently he cannot claim any relief or otherwise impose any liability of his service upon the Board.
5. -There is another aspect of this matter that on 1-2-1977 when the respondent employee stood transferred from the Board to the Corporation, there was no question of upgrading the post of Head Store Keeper to that of Superintendent Stores. He stood transferred on the same terms and conditions of service as they existed on 1-2-1977. It was for the first time on 17-3-1979 when the Managing Director of the Board decided to upgrade the post of Head Store Keeper to that of Superintendent Stores. The respondent employee cannot claim this benefit retrospectively from the Board on the ground that initially he was employed by it. It is an admitted fact that the Managing Director of the Corporation has not so far upgraded the post of Head Store Keeper to that of Superintendent Stores. The Corporation cannot be forced to do so merely on the ground that the Managing Director of the Board has done so. It is not denied that both the organizations are quite independent and separate-one created under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the other under the Companies Act, 1913.
6. The Labour Court has relied upon certain provisions of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972. It is suffice to say that the questions of application of any provision of the said Ordinance or the rules would arise only if the respondent proves that he is still an employee of the Board and the said provisions are applicable to him.
Similarly, the Labour Court has made certain observations doubting the competence of the formation of the Corporation, and the transfer of assets from the Board to the Corporation. It may be observed that there was no occasion and justification to make such observations in the instant ca and it was not within the competence of the Labour Court to discuss such an issue which is likely to prejudice the case of the Board and the Corporation. Moreover, the respondent-employee, being an ordinary employee, cannot b allowed at this late stage to agitate such issue which may result in destroying or ruining the entire establishment and thereby creating chaos in the organization. Such an issue can be tackled at the higher level through C.B. A. Or other agencies, but one individual worker/employee cannot be allowed to create such chaotic situation in the organization without any benefit to himself. The finding of the Labour Court that the lien and seniority of the respondent in the list of Head Store Keepers of the Board remained intact, is erroneous. As mentioned above, after 1-2-1977 the worker ceased to be the employee of the Board and, therefore, the question of lien and seniority would not arise.
7. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that after the transfer of the respondent employee on the same terms and conditions of service on 1-2-1977, Corporation alone is the de facto and de jure employer for all intents and purposes and conversely although the respondent employee was initially employed by the Board, yet since he stood transferred to the Corporation on the same terms and conditions of service and he did not raise any objection to or protest against his transfer and the Board, having fulfilled its part of the agreement dated 1-2-1977, the Board cannot be burdened with the rights and liabilities of the respondent employee or of such employees at this stage. It is further held that the respondent-employee by his own conduct and acquiescence is estopped to claim the Board as his employer for this limited purpose at this stage.1
8. In view of the above, both the appeals are accepted, the impugned decision of the Labour Court is set aside and the grievance petition of the respondent-employee is dismissed. 1980 PLC 390